I here by call out to every replicator interested in the two stage oscillation process to examine this video and work on a real device utilizing the very simple processes that I've explained in this video.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQ7H0UKF94

I myself will be working on a real one to show off.

In the mean time... here is the original bouncer:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTLh_vYBpd4

The problem is in creating the loop from the bouncer. Calculations of overunity are all fine as long as the excess energy can run the motor that drives the bouncer. But we haven't seen such a construction as yet. So what can we replicate? Your software offers a design of little practical value in my view.  No engineer will connect the bouncer to a cogwheel as primitive and inefficient as you suggest. The above suggestion of connecting the bouncer to a bicycle wheel gear box seems much better. You ask for replication of your design, but the only real thing to replicate is that bouncer of the realtime vid that for lacking a loop or real time power measurement has not proven to deliver more energy than it takes as yet. You make a nice guess with your software, but offer a replication of the bouncer, that is all. But we don't replicate designs that are replications or copy theories for that matter, we replicate applications that supposedly work. A (software) design is just a theory, the actual proof is in the application. So I'd say, as you promise indeed,  start tinkering yourself with a proper feedback system or a power in/out difference of measurement on that bouncer of yours until you have something real that works and then ask for replication.

The problem is in creating the loop from the bouncer. Calculations of overunity are all fine as long as the excess energy can run the motor that drives the bouncer. But we haven't seen such a construction as yet. So what can we replicate? Your software offers a design of little practical value in my view.  No engineer will connect the bouncer to a cogwheel as primitive and inefficient as you suggest. The above suggestion of connecting the bouncer to a bicycle wheel gear box seems much better. You ask for replication of your design, but the only real thing to replicate is that bouncer of the realtime vid that for lacking a loop or real time power measurement has not proven to deliver more energy than it takes as yet. You make a nice guess with your software, but offer a replication of the bouncer, that is all. But we don't replicate designs that are replications or copy theories for that matter, we replicate applications that supposedly work. A (software) design is just a theory, the actual proof is in the application. So I'd say, as you promise indeed,  start tinkering yourself with a proper feedback system or a power in/out difference of measurement on that bouncer of yours until you have something real that works and then ask for replication.

Let me re-frase that then... Don't replicate this system... Be creative! Examine the thing and figure out how to apply the principal to some application, whether its a better way to spin a bicycle wheel or to grind Orio cookies or even to feedback loop the thing so that it explodes. I don't care... Just do something!!!


There is that better. 

P.S.  This topic is about energy in versus energy out, not Feedback loops.

Let me re-frase that then... Don't replicate this system... Be creative!

There are two different approaches:
1. Replicating the work of another to verify
2. Being creative

They should not be muddled up and both have value.

Quite to the contrary, I firmly believe that the work of replication most often requires a high degree of creativity. For the attempts made to replicate many devices (especially certain devises described on this web site under a claim of functionality) are done so with a lack of precise descriptions, dimensions or components. It must therefore be the obligation of any would be replicator to not only go by exacting descriptions of a device that is in the know, but to pull from every angle of his/her own creativity and knowledge of working concepts to discover and disclose any device not in the know.  Beyond this, if a creative replicator has the ability to visionally see into a thing and its inner workings and then envision a better way for said thing to work, is it not better that he incorporate these improvements with full disclosure for the benefit of all, including the next would be replicator.

Is this not similar to the way that open source software is improved?

Could we ever have EVOLVED without this process? (If evolution is your belief)

Replication indeed often involves creativity and ingenuity. For instance: one to one replication of the Finsrud device - also a pendulum study by the way - is next to impossible, but you can make creatively an adaptation that is in line with his principles. But that implies an improvement upon some of his elements of construction. That thus in being creative also requires ingenuity, for you can only replicate if you improve in his case. 'Boldly go where none went before' stays a golden oldie in this business, even replicating....

My Finsrud study: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9GucVwc36Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii_HAusOf1A

Does it swing longer with or without the wheel connected?

something new from YouTube:

2 Stage Oscillator Success
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbC7nil0eas

Success?

The "physics & math" presented in that YT video are severely flawed..

Please will explain.

No, I leave that to you.
Have some fun!